Theatrical Review of Catch a Fire

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

"Catch a Fire" is an interesting study in words, sides and colors. It's a story told from the oppressed majority, which is contrary to most films of its ilk that take the perspective of the oppressed minority. Here, the story of apartheid and all its associated ugliness is told through two people: everyman Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke) and special intelligence agent Nic Vos (Tim Robbins).

Patrick, a foreman at a coal plant in South Africa, leads a relatively successful life. He is married to a beautiful woman, has to loving kids and holds a position of responsibility at work. He coaches the village children's soccer team and generally keeps his nose out of places it doesn't belong. On their way home from winning the soccer finals, the plant is attacked by the African National Congress-"terrorists", as the white population calls them. Soon, Patrick is targeted, as well as his family, for having a hand in the explosion.

This film, directed by Phillip Noyce and written by the son of anti-apartheid activists, is as much a historical document detailing a certain time in South African history as it is an essay on the current state of the world. On a cursory glance, it would be easy to identify the "bad" guys and the "good" guys. But there is more to both sides than a simple white or black hat. Patrick is the protagonist without a doubt, but he isn't necessarily a good man. He's cheated on his wife and has a child with the other woman. We're also told he has promised Precious (wife) he wouldn't see the other woman again-ten times. So we know he is a liar and an adulterer, but somehow he's still the hero of the piece.

It's not as if he doesn't love his wife he does, as evidenced in the scene where he takes full responsibility for the bombing when Precious has been brutalized. Patrick is a great father and loves both his daughters immensely. But he is painted as one of the nastiest kinds of people in the world: Vos calls him a terrorist.

Terrorist.

The word makes you flinch in our post 9/11 world. Before, terrorists attacked other places, not here. To hear a white man call someone a terrorist for allegedly blowing up a coal plant-where no one was hurt-is an attempt to demonize a group of people trying to secure their freedom and equality. As Vos tells Patrick, there are three million whites in the country and twenty-five millions blacks…yet the white men hold all the power. If the black people wanted to rise up and take what they wanted, there would be no contest. But the fact of the matter is that the people living in villages like Patrick's aren't terribly concerned or are intimidated to the point of inaction by the "oppressors". They tip toe around the white police it's like looking into America's past.

The African National Congress, the group responsible for the aforementioned bombing, makes it crystal clear to Patrick that his mission is to kill no one. Not a single person can lose their lives in this "terrorist" attack because, as they correctly understand but do not articulate, buildings can be rebuilt, people can not. If a person of any race is killed, then their cause loses all sympathy. However, on the flip side, Vos sees the ANC as a terrorist organization, trying to instill fear and change in a society where the oppressors are outnumbered over 8 to 1.

The "terrorist" terminology in "Catch a Fire" depends on whose perspective the events are being told through. As Ben Kenobi told Luke, he told the truth from a certain point of view. Patrick is a terrorist because he rebels against the establishment. Really, all he and the ANC want is equality and basic human rights. Why shouldn't all people be able to advance themselves and their families to the same levels? Why should one group control everything and live in posh housing while another calls a shack home? Being treated as human beings is all the ANC wanted. And Patrick would have been more than content to sit out the fight if Vos didn't take the fight to Precious.

"Catch a Fire" is told primarily through Patrick's eyes however, with the few glimpses we get of Vos, we see him as a man conflicted about his role in what is essentially history. At one point, he understands he has made Patrick into a "terrorist" by destroying his life. He understands, to some extent, he is responsible for the situation in South Africa and, more personally, for turning Patrick into a terrorist. And that, as much as anything else, gnaws at him near the end of the film.

The kicker is he may be the only white man to understand their perverted role in South Africa. They aren't there to make the country better they are there to exploit the people and land. Vos isn't a mustache twirling villain in the classic sense, even though he is the antagonist in this piece. It is under his orders that Patrick is let go after confessing to the bombing however, he is also the ringleader for all the torture, murder and despair that is present in the film. In the end, just as Patrick is not a purely good man, Vos is not a purely bad one. They are real men with their own demons.

Pulling off that kind of juggling act within a political storyline is no easy feat. The only real downfall in the film is the nearly obligatory action climax which doesn't feel right or at home in this dialogue driven film. In the context of the characters, it works well enough and it is competently directed and scripted, but lacks the emotional punch the rest of the film has. The audience is never given a reason to care if the refinery is blown up. It isn't the headquarters for the oppressors and only has significance as the symbol of the oppression. This is a game we've seen dozens of times before: will the bomb be found before it goes off? It's standard fare only in the fact it is an action climax to the film. The roles for each character are reversed from normal productions. Vos, the antagonist, is trying to disarm the weapon planted by Patrick, the "good guy".

The thing is, blowing buildings up is generally something the bad guy does. But Patrick has morality and ethics on his side with the mission. He is not doing this to be malicious or to hurt people. Rather, he wants to bring basic rights to people who have been disenfranchised in their own country. It's a powerful statement on the roles we as a society normally assign to people.

"Catch a Fire", as I alluded earlier, is all about sides, colors and shades. There are more shades of gray in this film than most people would want to admit. It shows that the good guys are not always good and the bad guys aren't always bad. It's about the push and pull, politically and socially, internally and externally. This is a film that knows it has something important to say and won't let anything stand in its way.

This is in my personal top five films of the year. Acting, writing, directing…all the elements came together to make "Catch a Fire" one of the very best films of the year. Better than, yes, "United 93" and "The Illusionist" and "The Departed". This is a standout picture in every way, one that should be talked about heavily at Oscar time. On the scale of 1 to 10, "Catch a Fire" gets an 8.

---